MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388844272 · doi:10.5539/ass.v19n6p84

New Changes and Challenges in the Youth Employment in China After Covid-19

2023· article· en· W4388844272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Weiyue Mei

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentChinaYouth unemploymentMerge (version control)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Vulnerability (computing)Job creationEconomic growthDemographic economicsLabour economicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employment in the younger generation is related to citizens’ well-being, social development, and political stability. In comparison with other demographic groups, young individuals more often face various challenges. These include greater vulnerability in the labor market, dissatisfaction with their employment status, notable structural disparities in employment opportunities, and inadequate effectiveness of policy support in employment. This article focuses on the current employment difficulties faced by college students and other young individuals in China. Drawing insights from official data, survey data, and platform monitoring data, the analysis points out notable shifts in youth employment. These new changes encompass a rise in employment within state-owned enterprises and an increase in the proportion of flexible employment. The youth are now facing new challenges which involve the coexistence of both periodic unemployment and structural unemployment, as well as high education and high unemployment. To address these issues effectively, it is recommended to merge short-term stable economic growth with long-term structural adjustment, thereby improving the quantity and quality of employment opportunities for the youth.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207